Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18438717 | Point Anomaly Detection | February 2024 | May 2025 | Abandon | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17582995 | System and Method for Data Ingestion, Anomaly Detection and Notification | January 2022 | March 2024 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17218536 | System for Generating Enterprise Remediation Documentation | March 2021 | January 2022 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17219122 | RULE-BASED CONTINUOUS DIAGNOSING AND ALERTING FROM APPLICATION LOGS | March 2021 | December 2021 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17197289 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ACCESSING AT LEAST ONE MEMORY REGION OF SSD DURING FAILOVER SITUATION IN MULTIPATH SYSTEM | March 2021 | September 2021 | Allow | 6 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17114388 | COORDINATED PANIC FLOW | December 2020 | December 2021 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17085994 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COLLECTING OPTIMAL SET OF LOG FILES FOR ERROR REPORTS | October 2020 | September 2021 | Allow | 11 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17008177 | METHOD OF OPERATING A DIGITAL SYSTEM OPERABLE IN MULTIPLE OPERATIONAL STATES AND DIGITAL SYSTEM IMPLEMENTING SUCH METHOD | August 2020 | January 2022 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16989274 | REAL-TIME TRIGGER TO DUMP AN ERROR LOG | August 2020 | August 2021 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16958202 | METHOD OF FAULT MANAGEMENT IN A NETWORK OF NODES AND ASSOCIATED PART OF NETWORK OF NODES | June 2020 | October 2021 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16665384 | Dynamic Configurable Microcontroller Recovery | October 2019 | April 2022 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16587777 | ENFORCING DATA LOSS THRESHOLDS FOR PERFORMING UPDATES TO MIRRORED DATA SETS | September 2019 | November 2021 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16488057 | CONTROL DEVICE | August 2019 | January 2022 | Allow | 29 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16076085 | NETWORKING COMPONENT REPAIR | August 2018 | May 2022 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15754092 | CONVERGED SYSTEM COMPLIANCE CHECKING | February 2018 | October 2020 | Abandon | 32 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15865047 | GRAPH-BASED ISSUE DETECTION AND REMEDIATION | January 2018 | November 2020 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15863896 | METHODS FOR GC (GARBAGE COLLECTION) POR (POWER OFF RECOVERY) AND APPARATUSES USING THE SAME | January 2018 | December 2020 | Abandon | 35 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15637034 | Mechanism for Dual Active Detection Link Monitoring in Virtual Switching System with Hardware Accelerated Fast Hello | June 2017 | September 2020 | Abandon | 39 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15452661 | AVAILABILITY MANAGEMENT INTERFACES IN A DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING SYSTEM | March 2017 | October 2020 | Abandon | 43 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15381118 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING DATA RECOVERY IN REDUNDANT STORAGE SYSTEM | December 2016 | February 2020 | Abandon | 38 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15071966 | DATA STORAGE SYSTEM WITH PERSISTENT STATUS DISPLAY FOR MEMORY STORAGE DEVICES | March 2016 | March 2020 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14996273 | ROOT-CAUSE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING ROOT-CAUSE OF ISSUES OF SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS | January 2016 | November 2019 | Abandon | 46 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14312485 | IMPLEMENTING TIERED PREDICTIVE FAILURE ANALYSIS AT DOMAIN INTERSECTIONS | June 2014 | February 2020 | Abandon | 60 | 12 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14246226 | IMPLEMENTING TIERED PREDICTIVE FAILURE ANALYSIS AT DOMAIN INTERSECTIONS | April 2014 | February 2020 | Abandon | 60 | 12 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13687417 | MESSAGE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR A PORTABLE DEVICE | November 2012 | April 2018 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner KIM, MATTHEW M works in Art Unit 2114 and has examined 23 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 43.5%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 32 months.
Examiner KIM, MATTHEW M's allowance rate of 43.5% places them in the 9% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by KIM, MATTHEW M receive 3.13 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 89% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by KIM, MATTHEW M is 32 months. This places the examiner in the 50% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -38.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KIM, MATTHEW M. This interview benefit is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 2.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments compared to other examiners. You should generally plan to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry. Per MPEP § 714.12, primary examiners have discretion in entering after-final amendments, and this examiner exercises that discretion conservatively.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 98% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 8% percentile). This examiner rarely makes examiner's amendments compared to other examiners. You should expect to make all necessary claim amendments yourself through formal amendment practice.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 9% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically come directly without a separate action for formal matters.
Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:
Not Legal Advice: The information provided in this report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with a qualified patent attorney or agent for advice specific to your situation.
No Guarantees: We do not provide any guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the statistics presented above. Patent prosecution statistics are derived from publicly available USPTO data and are subject to data quality limitations, processing errors, and changes in USPTO practices over time.
Limitation of Liability: Under no circumstances will IronCrow AI be liable for any outcome, decision, or action resulting from your reliance on the statistics, analysis, or recommendations presented in this report. Past prosecution patterns do not guarantee future results.
Use at Your Own Risk: While we strive to provide accurate and useful prosecution statistics, you should independently verify any information that is material to your prosecution strategy and use your professional judgment in all patent prosecution matters.